- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31341 MFA No. 4952 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4952 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE SUBBAIAH, 2. HANUMANTHA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE SUBBAIAH, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF SAMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN-560 067. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SUJA ISSAC AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O ISSAC MATHAI, R/AT NO. 261 SOUKYA HOSPITAL ROAD, SAMTHANAHALLI VILLAGE, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560 067. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31341 MFA No. 4952 of 2024 2. K S CHANDRASHEKARA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O T SONAPPA, RESIDENT OF KODIHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 560 067. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A G NAGARAJA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DTD 06.08.2025, NOTICE TO R2 D/W) THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.04.06.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.2 AND 3 IN O.S.NO.1866/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE, ON IA NO.2 AND 3 IN O.S.NO.1866/2022, ETC THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the order of temporary injunction granted on I.A.Nos.2 & 3 in O.S.No.1866/2022 (Old O.S.No.1336/ 2016) dated 04.06.2024 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Hosakote. 2. The plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31341 MFA No. 4952 of 2024 the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property and defendants have executed agreement of sale on 05.07.2014 through GPA holder who is defendant No.3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have executed the sale of agreement in favour of the plaintiff through GPA holder who is defendant No.3 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for total sale consideration of an amount of Rs.46,87,500/- and the entire said sale consideration amount was paid to defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is further case of the plaintiffs that as per Clause 6 in the agreement of sale, the possession of the land was delivered on the day of execution of agreement of sale itself. 3. Therefore, the applications are filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and the trial Court has allowed the said applications against the defendants. The said order is in challenge. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31341 MFA No. 4952 of 2024 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that though in the agreement of sale, the entire sale consideration of an amount of Rs.46,87,500/- was paid by cash, but it is not agreeable since such huge amount could not have been paid through cash only. Therefore, the said transaction is doubtful and submitted that they have not received any amount from the plaintiff. Further, it is submitted that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have handed over the possession of the property in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's right is only in respect of agreement of sale and possession was not given to the plaintiff. Therefore, the order of temporary injunction is not correct. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that as per the agreement of sale, the entire sale consideration amount was paid and agreement of sale was registered. Therefore, once an agreement of sale is registered and entire sale consideration paid to defendant Nos.1 and 2 through - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31341 MFA No. 4952 of 2024 defendant No.3 who is GPA holder and also as per Clause 6 in the agreement of sale, possession was handed over to the plaintiff, the Trial Court has fairly considered and granted order of temporary injunction. 6. Considering the averments made in the plaint, suit is one for specific performance of contract and the plaintiff's right is in respect of agreement of sale. Admittedly, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the suit schedule property and the agreement of sale is registered. Whatever the sale consideration that amount has been paid by the plaintiff to defendant Nos.1 and 2 that is found in the agreement of sale. In Clause 6 of agreement of sale, there is a Clause that possession will be delivered today. But the revenue records stand in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Now the suit is for discretionary relief of specific performance of contract. Therefore, the order of temporary injunction granted is modified and the order of status quo is granted directing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31341 MFA No. 4952 of 2024 both the parties to maintain status quo of possession as on today. 7. Therefore, with the above observations, the appeal is disposed of, directing the plaintiff and defendants to maintain status quo of possession as on today. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37